| Final-Fan said: 1. If you'd read that section, you'd see the objection is that it's "clearly not animal intelligence". That in no way contradicts the idea that it is a lower form of intelligence, perhaps as low as "bacterial intelligence" or perhaps in between. Some people don't like using the word "intelligence" to refer to such low levels of intelligence, but that's a matter of semantics. |
1. If you would've read your own article, you would've known that it's debatable whetherplants have actual "intelligence", or whether it is simply adaptation.
2. You can compare different levels of the food chain with eachother.
3. In a sense it might (at some point there has always been 1 species at the top of the food chain, so humans are just 1 in a long line), but my main objection was regarding his claims that humans are more "valuable" than other lifeforms.
4. Animals of different species cooperating with eachother is something quite common. It has nothing to do with the food chain however, as in the food chain when I say "depends on eachother" it means "one eats the other in order to survive" - that's what the food chain is about. Corn is a plant, it does not eat humans. Plants don'tusualyl depend on other lifeforms to survive, because they don't need organic material to survive (that's why they're considered strictly producers). Plus, humans and corn do not cooperate, because humans grow corn to eat it, and I'm sure corn (if it had intelligence) would dislike this fact (same for other products of human agriculture and animal raising). Cooperation is like that bird who cleans crocodiles mouths, and the crocodiles don't eat them.
5. It eauqals to more "valuable".
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)







